Keith Devens .com

Do guns really help people defend themselves? That's not a retorical question: I genuinely don't know the answer. Say you've got a law abiding citizen with a gun and a ruthless criminal with a gun. Who's going to shoot first? As a law abiding citizen I know I'd hesitate, and I'm not convinced a criminal would do the same. If I didn't have a gun, then I'd get robbed but at least I'd come out the other end alive (assuming the criminal is smart enough not to shoot me).

Some perspective: I live in the UK where guns are illegal (mostly anyway) and gun crime is rare. If I lived in a country with a serious gun crime problem I might have a very different view of the matter. I also realise that this argument doesn't work when the crime is rape.

I can also only answer from my perspective, which is from a country with gun-control, the Netherlands.
I would like to keep this gun-control as it is.
I would feel more threatened if this gun-control were lifted. It is not just criminals that would have easier access to guns (they have access anyway, but there are hardly any gun-crimes here, and if there are, they are often within criminal circles, conflicts between gangs and such), but also lunatics that just get crazy and could start shooting around at innocents.

Last night there was a shooting here in the Hague, one person killed, two wounded, and this was major national news, showing how rare it is.

The right to defend to me is something that will occur in a particular situation, I do not prepare to defend myself, I also do not carry a knife, even though that would be legal to do. And I would feel threatened if everybody started carrying knives here, but this is not the case.

The main argument I hear is that, at least in the more densely populated areas, guns have been doing more damage than they do successful defense. It may be true that the hardcore criminal can get past gun control laws, but I do not believe they constitute the majority of gun-related crimes or accidents. I understand the need for defense, but I would rather it be something non-lethal.

It does seems like an arms war if everyone had guns for whatever purpose. One I think the criminals would win. One of the original reasons for gun-protection was so that we could fight against our own government, but I think we'd be outclassed.

With me, as with others who've commented, it's a pragmatic thing: I think limiting the availability of guns will do more to keep me safe than carrying a gun would. Not that safety is the most important thing in the world, of course, but when it comes to defending myself, safety is precisely the question at hand.

That said, there are other issues that make the question of gun control more complicated than my bare statement above allows for. Guns can be used in self defense by people who know what they're doing, and it seems undesirable, at best, to limit people's rights based on what they might do. So I'd be unwilling to ban guns absolutely.

The moderate gun control position seems to be to restrict guns that clearly aren't meant to be used defensively, but to leave others more freely available. Does that make sense?

Keith, I agree with you and abide by the statement: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It might sound cheesy, but I feel it is true.

A gun is not a defense. A gun is a counter-offense. Do you spend every hour of every day on edge, alert, ready and looking out for attacks? Then you might get the chance to use the counter-offensive power of your gun before another gun gets used on you. Me, I'd rather enjoy life. The fewer guns there are out there, the safer such a life is.

The fewer guns there are out there, the safer such a life is.

Why? If everyone isn't "on edge", then the guns won't get used, right?

You assume a populace that behaves rationally, with self-preservation as one of its goals. As we see in the Middle East, and will probably see more in the US, these assumptions are questionable.

Huh?

And in an alternate universe...
"So you're for allowing people easier ways to kill each other"

Slanted question gets a slanted question Keith.

Uh, ok. I didn't consider the question "slanted", but that's a very silly way to look at it. The law-abiding people who are actually the ones affected by gun control aren't typically the ones who go around killing people. Gun rights make it easier for regular people to defend themselves against those people. Lack of gun rights make it easier for those people to kill, since it makes it harder for regular people to defend themselves.

I see no reason to be on that side of a debate if you have any common sense you will be able to see that gun laws arre strict enough, in the US anyway, anything more would just be punishing the hunter who does a great service to his community by keeping down animal populations that would eventually wander into the road and kill people. one says "the fewer guns there are out there, the safer such a life is." but this cannot be true what people really need is to have a good respect for guns. I am not saying video games are bad. I am 16 and have had heard people that play video games commplain because games are "too realistic, too hard." THis shows that people do not play video games because they want to kill people but rather because they want to master them. To answer your first question don't argu against something that has no logical argument.

"guns dont kill people, people kill people."

WHAT?

thats sentence is beyond stupid - and i'm pretty sure that the gun helps.

i live near brixton, which has the 3rd <i think> highest gun crime in britain, and even then its rare. why do peple really need guns - surely we want to work towards making guns totally exstinct, and then we wont need to defend ourselves - clearly this is not going to happen, but is it better to try to decrease or increase the likelyhood?

surely we want to work towards making guns totally exstinct, and then we wont need to defend ourselves

That's a very strange way to look at it. It's as if you believe that if there were no guns, violence would cease.

Rather than looking at guns as "evil", I look at them as a definite good. They allow individuals to protect themselves better than anything else ever invented. I continue to wonder why people have a problem with that.

One more thing. I'd like to point out that crime in Britain has only gone up since guns were banned in your country. I just discovered someone even wrote a whole book about it.

Update here if you're interested.

One more thing. I'd like to point out that crime in Britain has only gone up since guns were banned in your country

What TYPE of crime are you referring to? Death by handgun? You must be kidding. The US ranks by far as the most violent nation in the industrial world (you may not be a fan of Michael Moore, but he certainly did not pull his numbers out of a hat: USA, 1999: 11,000 handgun-related deaths. England: about 250). Here's the fundamuntal difference between Euros and Americans: You call "freedom" the right to purchase a semi-automatic gun and blow the brains out of someone you deem dangerous (sometimes within reasons, unfortunately the NRA couldn't care less between you and the psycho next door). We call freedom not having to look over our shoulders for some gun-carrying psycho crackhead (which you seem to have an endless supply of by the way). I still feel MUCH safer in London, thank you.

(you may not be a fan of Michael Moore, but he certainly did not pull his numbers out of a hat[)]

I'm in favour of banning guns, but that does make me laugh.

he certainly did not pull his numbers out of a hat

Michael Moore could tell me the world is round and I wouldn't believe him without verifying it myself. He's proven he's willing to be dishonest if it advances his agenda, and for me that means I'll no longer trust anything he says. I'm not necessarily saying his statistics are incorrect, only that I wouldn't use Moore as an authority.

You must be kidding

No, I'm not. The argument is very simple. Crime, while greater in the US, has been declining, while crime in the UK, particularly since guns were banned, has gone up (sharply).

Also, by phrasing everything in terms of "psycho[s]" and "gun-carrying psycho crackhead[s]" you poison the debate with emotive language, and you're not really arguing rationally at all. I love to point things like this out because it shows clearly that you lack any rational argument and must resort to implying that anyone who owns a gun must be a "psycho".

What's also funny is that by referring to a "semi-automatic gun" you show your ignorance about guns. I'd bet you don't even know what that means. I'd even bet you've never even fired a gun (which would further show your ignorance about the issue).

Finally, I decided to actually take the time to look up some statistics. One thing I came across stated that almost 60% of handgun deaths in the US were suicides, and under 40% were homicides. Did Michael Moore mention that? It's also silly to cite absolute statistics because of the large difference in populations between the US and England.

Finally, last time I checked, the criminals in your country still have guns, even if the people don't. To me, that's the most important failing of any gun control legislation. It stops law-abiding citizens from owning guns, while the criminals (people who don't follow the law) will still have guns. The common refrain is "if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns".

I'll end with some quotes from that article in the Guardian:

Last year saw a record 35 per cent jump in gun crimes, which means there are now, on average, 30 incidents each day. There were almost 10,000 incidents involving firearms recorded in England and Wales and, although the largest increases were in metropolitan areas, the figures showed use of handguns was also growing in rural communities. Overall, handguns were used in almost half of these incidents.

Handgun crime has soared past levels last seen before the Dunblane massacre of 1996 and the ban on ownership of handguns introduced the year after Thomas Hamilton, an amateur shooting enthusiast, shot dead 16 schoolchildren, their teacher and himself in the Perthshire town.

It was hoped the measure would reduce the number of handguns available to criminals. Now handgun crime is at its highest since 1993.

Oops, two "Finally"s.

"I'm not necessarily saying his statistics are incorrect"

So you admit they're correct.

"only that I wouldn't use Moore as an authority"

I'm not. But his numbers are correct.

"Crime, while greater in the US, has been declining"

Sorry, but you STILL remain at the top in gun-related deaths.

"What's also funny is that by referring to a "semi-automatic gun" you show your ignorance about guns. I'd bet you don't even know what that means. I'd even bet you've never even fired a gun (which would further show your ignorance about the issue)"

Oh come on, you know what I mean. Should I have used the word "rifle"? You're trying to evade my point. Yes, I have fired guns before and I enjoy hunting (birds, that is). But never for protection, as I have never felt a need to carry a concealed weapon, ever. Sure we have guns in Europe, lots of them. It's just harder to aquire them, thank God. So sleep tight tonight with that UZI (thank you NRA) under your mattress ... you never know....

"One thing I came across stated that almost 60% of handgun deaths in the US were suicides, and under 40% were homicides.

Where is your source?

Michael Moore (a NRA member himself) simply adresses the question "Why does the US lead the world in handgun-related deaths"? With more hanguns per household than any other industrial nations combined, is there a corelation? Why is Canada's handgun-related death toll far below that of the US, despite having itself a large supply of fireguns on the market? Shooting sprees occasionally happen in Europe but are very rare. Why so many in the US, or is it that Americans are simply more trigger-happy than Europeans?

So you admit they're correct.

No, I'm just saying I haven't checked them myself.

I'm not. But his numbers are correct.

Ok, what's your source besides Michael Moore?

Sorry, but you STILL remain at the top in gun-related deaths.

Of course. But again, we're talking trends. While crime has been decreasing in the US, like I said, crime has been increasing in the UK, especially since the gun ban. I claim that there's a correlation.

Oh come on, you know what I mean. Should I have used the word "rifle"?

Usually when people try to frame the debate in extremes they refer to automatic assault rifles or something

as I have never felt a need to carry a concealed weapon, ever

Part of the point of living in a free society is that your feelings don't dictate the freedoms of others. I have no problem when people don't want to own guns. I have a problem when people try to take away the freedom of others to own guns. Of course, to you the fact that I think people should be free to own guns (which I don't currently, by the way) means that I advocate "blowing peoples brains out".

Where is your source?

Sorry about that, I should have given the link. I got it from:
http://www.gun-control-network.org/facts.htm, and their citation was:

In 1999, 58% of all gun deaths were suicides, and 38% were homicides.(SOURCE: Hoyert DL, Arias E, Smith BL, Murphy SL, Kochanek, KD. Deaths: Final Data for 1999. National Vital Statistics Reports. 2001;49 (8).)

The final question by Michael Moore is a very good one. It brings up larger cultural issues, and it would be nice to know all the reasons. But I claim the very existence of handguns does not suddenly turn people into violent "psychos". Instead, I believe an armed populace is a deterrent to crime, and in addition is an important part of a free society, and even a guarantor thereof.

Statistics...

I bet you can easily find surveys, studies and statistics that seem to indicate a correlation between gun control laws and a decrease in gun-related crimes (http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/US_factsheet.pdf). Same vice versa. So who's right, and who's wrong? It doesn't matter as long as such statistics presume there is such a strong correlation between both issues that all other factors, which may be of relevance too, can be neglected. But working this way you can "prove" almost anything by the use of statistics. A correlation may be purely coincidental though.

Take for example the Englands increased gun crime. Does that mean that gun-control laws are exclusively responsible for creating this situation? Maybe not. Has police force been reduced? What other socio-economical factors may play a role? I'd say the increase/decline of crime is a process much more complicated than reducing it to two variables that effect it. We need to look at the bigger picture, IMO.

As a different thought, does an armed population actually deter crime? Take a look at the Balkan, Iraq or Afghanistan. All countries in which gun ownership is very common. Are they without or with significantly low crime? If not, why? And if crime is high, can we conclude that the theory of "gun ownership deters criminals" is not valid at all?

One more point:

Part of the point of living in a free society is that your feelings don't dictate the freedoms of others.

That's nice to think, but way off from reality. In democracies, your individual freedom is always balanced out against the freedom of others, or you'd have anarchy. Further, what "freedom" actually means is open to interpretation. Ask yourself if you would have an issue with allowing homosexual marriage. Denying would be restricting their freedom by others, eh? I don't want to digress from the discussion, it's just to illustrate the point of this paragraph.

Keith, I did not suggest all gun owners turn into violent psychos. The problem has to do with the availibility of guns in the US, which seems to be out of control. It's quite simple really, the more guns (how the NRA doesn't have a problem with the selling of semi-automatics and other "self-defence" devices is beyond me), the more chances they are to find their way into the hands of "unbalanced" people... It's a viscious circle - the more that happens, the more law-abiding citizens such as yourself feel a need to arm themselves.

I was horrified when I read the headlines in June 2004. A 21 year old young lady traveled from Timmons, Ontario Canada. She went to New York to visit the her fiencee's family. Well 24 hours in New York and she was found dead, stripped to her underwear in a garbage dumpster. This is incredible. What does this say about New York and it being safe? The North American economy is powered by the weapon's industry. If world peace broke out tomorrow, there would be a great depression. That is the real motivation for the power of the gun lobby in the USA. There is nothing wrong for a gun hobbiest to have guns. There is nothing wrong for a hunter to have access to guns. Guns are a niche market, not a mass market. It should be available only in hobby shops, not Walmart. Anybody who is so pro-gun are on the payrole for the CIA and the wretched weapons industry that are ruining America's credibility in foreign affairs. Gun control is needed in the USA. In Canada it is safe everywhere. Yes in some areas it is bad, but overall it is safe. Either you have firm, gun control, or the abolition of guns. What is going on right now is a morale outrage.

What does this say about New York and it being safe?

Uh, yeah, and NYC has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. What does that say about the effectiveness of gun control laws?

The North American economy is powered by the weapon's industry.

Really? That's news to me. What do you base that on?

Anybody who is so pro-gun are on the payrole for the CIA

That would be cool, but I don't work for the CIA. Or do I?

Gun control is needed in the USA. ... Either you have firm, gun control, or the abolition of guns.

It's called our second amendment, dickwad. You don't have such a thing in Canada, eh?

Why don't we just stop making bullets? Anyone could have a gun and we would all be safe from the muppets who can't control their trigger fingers.

Shouldn't we try to move towards a safer world for everyone? It should be a slow but a steady progress. It should start with 1) educating children about the negative effects of drugs, guns, smuggling 2) strengthening the police force 3)making it harder to produce/own guns. Banning guns will not likely reduce crime rate and suicide rate as people will just switch to a different means. To reduce the rate of accidental fatalities, gun production should be well-regulated to make sure they meet certain safety requirements such as better lock system. The goal is to have a safer world and the path to pursue is not an extreme measure as banning guns.

hey, i just happen to be a U.S. Highschool student doing a report on anti-gun control in my government class and i seem to be on the inbetween i say that anyone should be able to own and use a gun it for the correct reason like hunting or shooting at a shooting range i also abide by the saying "guns dont kill people, people kill people." i dont see guns sprouting legs and arms runing around shooting people for fun so why ban them why not limit uses on them such as not being able to carry concealed unless licensed and have a reason to be doing so such as going hunting or going to a gun show or a shooting range people shouldnt need to use a gun to win a fight settle it the right way words or fists is the way to do it.But i dont really see the reason for banning assualt rifles in california id love to own an automatic weapon to go hunting/shooting with or just as protection in my own home. becuase i dont plan on doing a drive by in my life time.

If I save one person's life by carrying my gun with me, is it still not worth it?

That's a good question.

Truth is that we will never be able to control the flow of guns through out the world. If someone wants to get a gun there will always be a way. As long as there are evil people on this planet there is nothing we can do. We could put up laws, but what would that solve? People may choose to disobey these laws and find a way to get a gun. I see though that laws may help the limit the number of guns in citizens and non-citizens hands, but they still can get one if they wanted to. There is no one way to stop it but to just destroy all the guns in the world. Though that will never happen. There is no right answer to fixing this problem at this point in the world. It also seems to me that some of you are trying to say that one country or place is responsible for most of the gun problem. As long as there are deaths by gun in more then one country then no one country is to blame, but all countries are to blame. Also I wouldn’t rely on statistics as a way to prove a point, I'm not saying that they lie; I'm saying that people can lie.

It's funny how the manufacturers are supposed to take responsility for gun crimes and not the criminals who pulled the trigger. Everyone thinks by getting rid of firearms the world would become eutopian. The truth is that criminals will resort to knives, bats, chains or even handmade firearms. Have you seen the cellphone gun? Personal responsibility should be the issue. I don't hear anyone wanting to ban or confiscate cars. They kill more people in this world than guns. We could sue the manufacturers of vehicles because the drive on thier own. I once had seen a bumper sticker that stated: Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnel fat!

I am NOT pro-gun control in the least. The type of people who are pro-gun control are the type of people who would stand around while a woman was getting raped. Or while a child was getting murdered. They do not care for the lives of others. Only themselves.

They also must resort to emotion rather than logic to make their points.